Stanford vs. Princeton

[Omega_Sanction]

<p>

I reject the idea of race as a proxy for diversity.</p>

<p>If you want to talk about diversity, talk about race AND socioeconomic status AND political ideology AND religion AND sexual orientation etc.</p>

<p>If you include all of those factors, then you get a more complete picture. So your statement is totally vacuous because your own closed-mindedness has limited your definition of diversity.

</p>

<p>I apologize and invalidate your complaint by clarifying I meant diverse racially when I made that comment you quoted.</p>

<p>

You want to talk about diversity, explain Stanford’s Californian population (or the EC pops. of the Ivies, etc.).

</p>

<p>EC pops.? Not entirely sure what that is, sorry.</p>

<p>Re: Stanford’s high California population. </p>

<p>According to their respective Common Data Sets (2009 - 2010 for both schools), Stanford is 46% Californian while Princeton is 19% New Jerseyian (not really sure what the term is). </p>

<p>By a 2008 estimate, New Jersey constitutes 2.794% of the United States population while California constitutes 11.86% of the United States population. This shows that Princeton over represents New Jersey 6.8:1 while Stanford over represents California 3.9:1. Of course, by absolute percentages, Princeton over represents New Jersey by 16.2% while Stanford over represents California 34.1%.</p>

<p>What do we conclude from this? Well, nothing. Even private schools over represent their states dramatically, and California just happens to be huge. By some metrics, it is possible to argue that Stanford fails more at maintaining geographic diversity than Princeton does… But by others, the exact opposite argument can be made.</p>